The Real Villain In The Attack On Foley

The mindlessness of society`s anti-gay bias was rarely more evident than in the comic opera triggered by the Republican attempt to suggest that House Speaker Tom Foley is homosexual.

Officially, blame for the fiasco was laid to Mark Goodin, then communications director for the Republican National Committee. He lost his job for releasing a memorandum labeled ``Tom Foley: Out of the Liberal Closet,``

and comparing Foley`s record to that of Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), an out- of-the-closet homosexual.

President Bush said the attempt to smear Foley was ``disgusting.``

Minority leader Bob Dole described the memo as ``garbage.`` And commentators generally agreed that Foley was the victim of what a public television reporter called a ``scurrilous attack.``

They were all correct, of course. Still, they missed the main point.

The true villain in the piece is not Goodin or his admittedly sleazy tactics. It is the archaic and tragic stereotypical thinking that makes this sort of political nonsense possible. The evil, in short, is the irrational mindset that says to be gay is shameful and renders one unfit for public service.

Like others, I have no knowledge-and consider it none of my business-whether Foley is or is not gay. I do know, though, that homosexuality is neither unusual or unnatural, on Capitol Hill or elsewhere. It is a normal state of being for some 24 million Americans.

Sadly, however, these are truths that, for the most part, neither the electorate nor its representatives seem willing to confront. So the reality remains that any innuendo of homosexuality-however irrelevant to the performance of public duties-still amounts to political vilification.

And as the low political drama of the Foley-Frank incident proceeded, these entrenched attitudes produced some interesting ironies.

Most notable, perhaps, was the manner in which the Republican shot backfired. It is an open secret-``open`` because everybody knows it, but

``secret`` because few will say so publicly-that gays are at least as prevalent on Capitol Hill as in the public at large. So panic ensued when an angered Frank threatened to expose some Republican gays if the partisan antics did not cease.

That, presumably, had a lot to do with the rich spectacle that saw the Republicans, who had started the fracas, ultimately outrace even the Democrats in the bipartisan scramble to get the lid on it.

A second irony is the Republicans` choice of Frank as the evil exemplar against which to compare their target, Foley. In fact, but for Frank`s homosexuality, congressmen might well be standing in line for the opportunity to be compared with the brainy Bostonian.

In him, intelligence and eloquence add up to a political style of rare potency. The Almanac of American Politics, a sort of Capitol Hill bible published by the National Journal, describes Frank as ``one of the most effective . . . congressmen in the nation,`` one with both ``brains and guts.``

Although he is an unabashed liberal, Frank`s vote can seldom be taken for granted. He is known for his independence and careful study of every issue, and has voted with Republicans on measures designed to cut waste in government spending.

When he first publicly acknowledged his homosexuality two years ago, Frank said he did it primarily because of media pressures. And to other gays who thought the disclosure made him a hero, he recalled John F. Kennedy`s response to questions as to how JFK became a war hero: ``They sank my boat.`` Frank should be held up as a role model of what we look for in legislators, rather than used as an attempted tool for smearing others. But we cannot, it seems, see beyond our stereotypes.